Talk:Jazmin Grace Grimaldi

School

Is it really that necessary to put what school she attends? I find it extremely frightening, given that she is still a minor, and her safety is a priority. Furthermore, why is it so important that people know where she goes to school? I think we should remove the line about where she attends school. Consider it. I won't remove it yet. Lets discuss it a bit first. Rbkl (talk) 07:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Her Title

Here is a question for discussion. I have read the Monegasque Constitution, and it does say that the throne is only inhereited throught the direct, legitimate line. However, what it neglects to state is what title the illegitimate children of a Sovereign Prince of Monaco shall have. For instance, a person who is not in the line of succession can still hold the title of Prince or Princess. In the cases of Jazmin and Alexandre, would it not be dynastic for them to use the appropriate titles of Prince and Princess of Monaco, given their fathers' position? Any response is welcomed. Rbkl (talk) 09:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no monarchy in the world in which titles are automatically given to bastard children. Jazmin is not a princess; Alexandre is not a prince. They have no titles, and will have no titles unless someone (their father, for example) specifically bestows them. - Nunh-huh 11:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you're saying. I understand. Ok. Thank you for clarification, it was just that it mentions nothing of what titles the rulers children, whether legiitmate or not, would/should have. I find it interesting. Even in our tribe, the Chief' illegitimate children do not have the normal titles of Prince or Princess, but do have certain honorifics. I always like to gain knowledge. Thank you. Rbkl (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

In bygone days, British kings occasionally granted their illegitimate children (and mistresses) peerage titles, and French kings often granted titles to their bastard children as well. But these titles were granted, not acquired by birth right. In present times, this just doesn't seem to happen. Prince Albert could grant a title to Jazmin, but probably won't. - Nunh-huh 00:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting...very interesting. Thank you. One of my European ancestors, who was John of Gaunt,had illegitimate children by Katherine Swynford, but then they were legitimated by Royal Assent, and then a following marriage. Since John of Gaunt was a Prince of England, would this have made his children Princes and Princesses of England, given their legitimation? IN Jazmins case, IF (I use IF in a very speculative form) her parents were to marry, would she acquire the title of Princess of Monaco? Also, I understand that she is NOT in the current line of succession, but if her father NEVER had any other children, would it not be possible for him to just write up some documant given Royal Assent to her succession? In my tribe, the legitimate children of a Chief, are automatically given, upon birth, the title of Prince or Princess, however, the first born, regardless of gender, is made the Hereditary Chief/Chieftess. The illegitimate children of a Chief are given the honorific of The Honorable, which is the equivalent usage for the children of our President or Vice President. The illegitimate children of any other Royal or Noble may hold the predicate "of" our tribe, for example: "Ms. Ava Kingston of...". Some illegitimate children may also be granted, upon Chiefly Assent, a minor Chiefdom, and then their children would be "of" said Chiefdom. Thank you for your help. Rbkl (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

regarding John of Gaunt: we call him that, but he was very rarely called that in his own time. He was given his first peerage title at the age of three, when he was created Earl of Richmond. He was created Duke of Lancaster in 1362 in consequence of his marriage to Blanche of Lancaster. His children with Katherine de Roet, widow of Hugh Swynford were, as you say, illegitimate at birth but later (1397) legitimated.

At present, the children of the British sovereign, the children of sons of the sovereign, and the eldest living son of eldest son of Prince of Wales are HRH Prince/Princesses of Great Britain and Ireland. But in general, English medieval royalty that we might now call princes were called by their peerage titles. Every one of Edward III's sons surviving into adulthood were made dukes (Clarence, Lancaster, York, Gloucester). John of Gaunt's children seem to have been known by titles other than prince or princess: John (Beaufort), Marquess of Somerset and Dorset; Henry Cardinal Beaufort, Thomas (Beaufort), Earl of Dorset; Joan Beaufort, Baroness Ferrers.

Parents can legitimate their bastard children only under certain conditions (which vary a bit with legal systems). One of those conditions is that at the time of the child's birth, the parents were not married to some third party. If a child's mother was married to someone other than the child's father at the time the child was born, the child is not merely a bastard; he is an "adulterine bastard": that is, he is not the product merely of fornication, but of adultery. Adulterine bastards cannot be legitimated simply by the marriage of their parents. (This probably had something to do with the "rights" of the man married to the mother.) Since Jazmin's mother was still married at the time of her birth, she cannot be legitimated by this means, and she would not acquire any titles if Prince Albert married her mother.

Monaco is a constitutional monarchy: the prince can't simply do whatever he chooses, and can't change the rules on a whim. The constitution determines who will succeed the monarch, and Prince Albert can do nothing about that (other than write a new constitution and get it approved in Monaco and France…a delicate and unlikely thing to do or to have happen.) - Nunh-huh 05:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

How interesting. Thank you for helping me better understand this. It is definately different than my tribal systems! :) Rbkl (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

constitution

I removed the phrase that the 2002 update of the constitution was the first change in 600 years. The first constitution of Monaco was only enacted in 1911. That was suspended in 1959 to be replaced in 1962 by the constitution that was amended in 2002.

Queen Brandissima - brandy.kelley@gmail.com

Friend or husband

• French newspapers say Tamara Rotolo was with her husband, not friend on the riviera.212.123.202.81 17:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. very interesting.....I guess you cannot blame Ms. Rotolo....it was an opportunity of a life time.

Grimaldi

If she is an American and not subject to Monegasque law, shouldn't her last name still read "Grimaldi"?

• My understanding is that part of the negociated deal with Thierry Lacoste is precisely that she will not use it. 82.120.1.10 05:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Her name actually still seems to be Grimaldi. - Nunh-huh 22:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Jazmin Grace will use surname Grimaldi until she completes school. Then, her surname of use will be her mother's maiden name of Rotolo. Her half-brother, Alexandre, uses the surname of Coste, one adopted by his mother.

Does she still go to JSerra High?Meson man 23:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note birth certificate: Born GRIMALDI, Passport states Grimaldi. Neither Father, nor attorney for family, ever made any statement about either child using Grimaldi name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.250.188 (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If she were to move to Monaco and obtain citizenship (which is possible, she would have to obtain it the way you and I would-living there at least 10 years or as long as whomever is the monarch at the time she moves deems she is worthy of exemption...and given her lineage....yeah, or marry a Monegasque man and remain married for at least 5 years), she would have to change her last name to something else. However, because she is an American, she doesn't have to change anything legally as that statue in the Constitution does not hold in American laws. As for her half-brother, he also presently carries the surname Grimaldi since moving to London in 2012 or 2013 with his mother. In contrary to the above, Prince Albert HAS made statements, on numerous occasions, referring to Jazmin as a Grimaldi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.171.80 (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

In or Out of wedlock? BLP questions

The comment that the child was born out of wedlock has been removed pending proper sourcing. There has been an OTRS complaint filed (Ticket#2007122110002539). I advised that the material could be re-added once sourcing was included. Please help us do this correctly. Thanks -JodyB _talk 17:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What on earth is the complainer on about? He thinks Prince Albert and Tamara Rotolo were married???? He thinks Prince Albert and Nicole Coste were married???? When a bastard child is acknowledged, the "out of wedlock" is pretty much confirmed. - Nunh-huh 18:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is the source for the acknowledgment? That's all you need. -JodyB _talk 20:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The acknowledgment of what? (please be specific with regard to the "OTRS complaints". It's impossible to address without knowing the specifics - and as far as I can tell you're the only one who knows them. It's hard to imagine an objection to describing Alexandre as being born out of wedlock that isn't disingenuous.) If you're referring to Albert's acknowledgment of Jazmin, it's in the first reference in her article (actually, this covers both acknowledged bastard children). If you're referring to the acknowledgment of Alexandre, it's in the first reference in his article. - Nunh-huh 20:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

First, the OTRS is a private communication between the foundation and the sender. Anyone with OTRS access can see the email. What happened here was a request to look at the article and address what was considered by one editor as vandalism. When I looked, I was more concerned that an assertion was being made which was not sourced. Since such could be viewed negatively I removed it and said what I did about BLP violations.

Now, looking again at the article I found numerous dead links which I then removed. No after you comment immediately above I have located the comment which supports your out of wedlock comment. However, the fact itself is not cited and it occurs as part of another citation.

So, return the comment and cite that fact with an inline citation. This is the best way to do it. I will then speak to the other editor and remind him that this is a disputed content issue and not vandalism. Just because something is said in a reference cited elsewhere does not mean it does a good job of providing a reliable source for an potentially controversial comment somewhere else.

No one needs to war over this. I have already told the other editor to come here and talk with you about it. I did tell him that once sourced, it can stay. I'll keep watching. Thanks for your work. -JodyB _talk 21:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[1] If the OTRS is a private communication, then there's no need to mention it: mentioning it says "there's a problem, and I won't tell you what it is: read my mind and fix it." The person who knows what the problem is needs to specify it, not play guessing games, because it can't be fixed if it's a secret. [2] the fact that Jazmin's biological parents were not married is not controversial. [2] the fact that Alexandre's parents were not married is not controversial. [4] It's inappropriate to remove dead links if they were references; they should be converted to non-links; even if no longer available on-line, they remain sources. [5] I will try to divine what references and statements you've removed and provide more explicit referencing for them. - Nunh-huh 04:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid you are incorrect about OTRS. It is routinely mention even when full details cannot be revealed. The material is controversial because it has been questioned and is potentially damaging material. However, it has now been properly sourced and can be left in place. A so-called link that leads to "document not found" is really no source at all. The article would be greatly helped if your would read and use WP:CITE. It's more trouble but much, much better. I am happy you want to "divine" the dead links I removed. That will be a piece of cake - divination not required-- and you may certainly add them back.

Please do not think that I am the enemy. I simply want the article to exist with accurate information and to avoid additional problems. However, since you are concerned, I have listed this article at Biographies of Living People Noticeboard for additional eyes on this article. Once those BLP issues are fully quelled, we can seek and RfC if needed. Thanks for your work. -JodyB _talk 12:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say you've deviated from procedure about OTRS, I said OTRS procedure is ridiculous. That her parents were not married (which I can only assume to be the issue, since you steadfastly refuse to say what the issue actually is), is questioned by no one - except, perhaps, your OTRS originator, but your refusal to state his actual objections means his questions will go unaddressed.

You say there are BLP issues, but refuse to state what they are here. You were apparently less reticent at BLP noticeboard. I'm not sure why that should be. There do not seem to be any BLP issues that remain. - Nunh-huh 16:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed material that was unreferenced or speculative editorialising. Further, please remember that the subject is a minor, so we need to be sensitive here. Our policies on living subjects need to be strictly followed.--Doc^g 13:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Part of what you removed as "editorializing" is in fact needed background material on Monegasque law, and its removal is unfortunate. You seem to feel a review of the relevant parts of the constitution of Monaco is "POV"; of course, you're mistaken. The constitution adopted in 2002 explicitly states that illegitimate children are not in the line of succession, and no one with any knowledge on the subject would hold any other point of view. The age of the subject is unrelated to your removal of this information. The subject is a minor on whose behalf suit was brought to have Prince Albert declared to be her father, and he has subsequently recognized her. Accurately reporting that fact is in no way acting against the subject's wishes! - Nunh-huh 16:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Article 10 of the constitution of Monaco: (translated from the French):

The succession to the throne, opened by death or abdication, takes place direct and legitimate issue of the reigning prince, by order of primogeniture with priority given to males within the same degree of kinship. 
In the absence of direct legitimate issue, the succession passes to the brothers and sisters of the reigning prince and their direct legitimate descendants, by order of primogeniture with priority given to males within the same degree of kinship. 
If the heir who would have acceded by virtue of the preceding paragraphs is deceased or has renounced before the succession became open, the succession passes to his own direct legitimate descendants, by order of primogeniture with priority given to males within the same degree of kinship. 
If the application of the preceding paragraphs does not fill the vacancy of the throne, the succession passes to a collateral appointed by the Crown Council upon same advice of the Regency Council. The powers of the prince are temporarily held by the Regency Council. 
The throne can only pass to a person holding Monegasque citizenship on the day the succession opens. 
The procedures of application of this article are set, as needed, by the statutes of the Sovereign Family, promulgated by Sovereign ordinance.

[1]

This replaces a section of the prior constitution which permitted illegitimate children of the prince to be adopted into the line of succession (Prince Louis II of Monaco adopted his bastard daughter Charlotte, who abdicated in favor of her son Prince Rainier. Had the current constitution have been in place, this would not have been possible). That the constitution adopted in 2002 removes this possibility is no accident; it was Rainier III's means of keeping his son's illegitimate children out of the succession. Much as the unnamed objector would like us to do so, it's impossible to discuss the succession to the throne of Monaco without discussing illegitimacy and its consequences. The descendants of Prince Rainier III were:

1 Rainier III of Monaco (1923 - 2005) & Grace Patricia Kelly (1929 - 1982)
	1a Caroline of Monaco* (1957 - ) & Philippe Junot (1940 - )
	1b Caroline of Monaco* (1957 - ) & Stephano Casiraghi (1960 - 1990)
		1 Andréa Casiraghi (1984 - )
		2 Charlotte Casiraghi (1986 - )
		3 Pierre Casiraghi (1987 - )
	1c Caroline of Monaco* (1957 - ) & Ernst August of Hanover (1954 - )
		1 Alexandra of Hanover (1999 - )
	2a Albert II of Monaco* (1958 - ) & Nicole Tossukpé (1971 - )
		1 (Eric) Alexandre (Stéphane) Coste (2003 - )
	2b Albert II of Monaco* (1958 - ) & Tamara Jean Rotolo (1961 - )
		1 Jazmin Grace Grimaldi (1992 - )
	3a Stephanie of Monaco* (1965 - ) & Daniel Ducruet (1964 - )
		1 Louis Robert Paul Ducruet (1992 - )
		2 Pauline Grace Ducruet (1994 - )
	3b Stephanie of Monaco* (1965 - ) & Jean-Raymond Gottleib (1967 - )
		1 Camille Marie Kelly Gottleib (1998 - )
	3c Stephanie of Monaco* (1965 - ) & Franco Knie
	3d Stephanie of Monaco* (1965 - ) & Pierre Pinelli
	3e Stephanie of Monaco* (1965 - ) & Adan Lopez Peres (~1974 - )

His son, Albert II, succeeded him. Albert might still marry and produce legitimate children; he could also marry the the mother of his illegitimate child Alexandre Coste and thus legitimate him. (He cannot do so with the mother of Jasmine, as Jasmine is not merely illegitimate, but adulterine). If Albert has no legitimate children at his death, the crown would pass to his sisters and their children. WIth Caroline and her children there are no issues of legitimacy. Of Stephanie's children, Louis and Pauline Ducruet were born (illegitimately) before her marriage to Daniel Ducruet, but the subsequent marriage of their parents legitimates them, and so they are in line to the succession. Camille Gottleib, because she is illegitimate, is not in the line of succession. - Nunh-huh 16:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• All that may be true, but it is beside the point. The verifiable facts can go on the article on the Monaco constitution. If there's to be be commentary on succession on this article, it has to be a record of media commentary, or what's been said ABOUT THIS PERSON in printed media. Otherwise what you have is an original synthesis. You need to find [{WP:RS|reliable sources]] that are discussing the constitutional position IN RELATION to Jazmin - and show that that discussion is considered important --Doc^g 16:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If you'd bother to check the sources already referenced in this article, you'll find that this is discussed there ("While she could receive a share of the prince's fortune, which has been estimated at $2 billion, she will not join the line of succession to the throne, because Monaco's constitution requires that its rulers are the products of formal Catholic unions. "), though incorrectly. (There is no requirement that the unions be Catholic). This is in no way an original synthesis, it's facts, and facts which the reader of the article need to know in order to be informed. - Nunh-huh 16:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

1. I think that the problem isn't sourcing by most recent editors of this article, but violation of WP:OWN by Jazmin's self-styled "trustee". The "trustee's" edits tend to minimize references to Jazmin's illegitimacy, while advancing the notion that she is "close" to the throne -- alleging that she could, at a stroke of Albert's Princely pen, be legitimized, become heir to the crown, and/or acquire dynastic titles. Unfortunately, the former cancels out the latter, and the only way to clarify the situation and prevent distortion is by sticking to the facts. I agree that sensitivity is called for when the subject is only 14. Still, it's possible to be both factual & minimally explicit. But the "trustee" must work with other editors toward that end. Instead, edits are inserted & deleted without regard for known Monegasque legalities. Worse, WP:BLP monitors -- you et al. -- are summoned to enforce those edits, infuriating editors who don't want to hurt Jazmin but insist that the article neither say nor imply other than the truth.
2. Sources? "Previous illegitimate sons and daughters of princes of Monaco became part of Europe's oldest royal family because there was little choice. There were no other heirs and the illegitimate offspring were needed to preserve the dynasty. This is no longer the case. The law of succession in Monaco was changed three years ago, precisely because Prince Albert showed no signs of marrying and producing children. The crown now passes to his sisters and their children, if he dies without producing a legitimate son or daughter...But there will be renewed questions aobut the judgement of Prince Albert, who was never quite trusted by his father to take a serious role in running the principality, which is, in effect, the family business", The Monegasque succession, John Lichfield, The (London) Independent, 6 May 2005.

• "Albert and Tamara Rotolo met on the Côte d'Azur in July 1991...She was married, Albert was careless'...Details of the affair surfaced after the Prince, who has never married, hinted last year at the existence of other children. In July, after he recognizesed that he was the father of a two-year-old boy, the Prince told Larry King on CNN, 'I know that there are other people who are in more or less the same situation. We will give them an answer at the appropriate time'...after a long legal wrangle which began in 1992, the date of the first demand for child support...Under Monaco law, an illegitimate child of the ruler cannot accede to power unless the ruler marries the mother. Under a 2002 succession law, passed before the death last year of Rainier III, Monaco's throne will pass to Princess Caroline if the Prince diews without legitimate offspring", 'Careless' Prince recognises second illegitimate child, Charles Bremmer, Times Online, 1 June 2006.
• "...Rotolo's father, Sam Rotolo, 75, said the family has known since Jazmin was born that she was the prince's child. He said Albert has provided financial support...At first blush, the revelations might seem a thorough embarrassment to Monaco, which is, at least on paper, a devout country. Albert said upon taking the throne last year that he would make it a top priority to clean up Monaco...However, this is the second time in less than a year he has acknowledged fathering a child...Centuries ago, monarchs such as King Henry IV and King Charles II were renowned for their ability to produce illegitimate children because the broods were seen as evidence of virility", U.S. Teen revealed as part of Monaco's royal family, Scott Gold, Lance Pugmire & Susannah Rosenbblatt, The Seattle Times, 2 June 2006.
• "I would think that she's going to get in the tens of millions of dollars, but it could be hundreds of millions of dollars...if they can show that he effectively disrupted a marriage because Tamara, the mother, was married at the time...He'd better start producing a legitimate heir soon, otherwise he will be worn out from his previous endeavors in that direction. But he is getting on. He was born in '58", Charles Moseley, editor, Debrett's, Paul Zahn Now, CNN, aired 1 June 2006.
• Clearly, there has been plenty of mainstream news coverage of Albert II, succession to his crown, the law, out-of-wedlock royal children, and their prospects -- as related to Jazmin. It can't be declared off-limits here. Now, can we work toward wording which is accurate, but won't invite schoolyard bullies to harrass a teenager? Lethiere (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• How long have you three taken to write all this ? To quote William Shatner : Get a life ! It's Christmas ! 86.198.131.80 (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Let's just say it took us considerably fewer edits to get it right than it did for you to add your two bits. The talk pages of articles are meant for facilitating the improvement of articles. If you're not interested in that, and if your sole input is to discourage it, perhaps it's you who should be moving on. - Nunh-huh 18:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

High School

It is not pertinent to the article what High School she attends. Jons63 (talk) 03:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

status

Nowhere does the article state that Jazmin is illegitimate. To understand this (rather basic fact that is so very important for royal families) you must puzzle together several other statements from this and her mother's page.

Please state clearly the child is illegitimate. This is just a statement of fact and should not be construed as making a moral judgement. 85.227.226.235 (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right that the article needs to make this clear. But concerned editors will usually revert such changes from an anonymous editor. I will try to present the information in as clear and inoffensive manner as possible, and hope that editors read the talk page to learn why, in this case, her illegitimacy is an essential part of the article. This has already been the occasion of an OTRS intervention, and those who staff OTRS are now satisfied that the information is more than adequately sourced and is in no way a contravention of our BLP policy. - Nunh-huh 03:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Just as an explanation, I reverted 12.146.102.46's edit because that user was inserting similar things to a vast array of articles, many of times where it was completely irrelevant. It seemed that the user was making a moral judgment call more than he or she was improving articles. The way the information is presented now is a good compromise, and I'm sorry if I stepped on any toes. --clpo13_(talk) 04:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No complaints here - and it's not as if you were the only person with the inclination to revert it - I totally understand, and I'm glad you think the current wording is informative rather than judgmental. I see what you mean about 12's other changes - illegitimacy is important when it disqualifies you from being the ruler of a nation, and clearly not when you're an actor! - Nunh-huh 04:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool, glad everything worked out. --clpo13_(talk) 20:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

status #2

Now, it is mentioned she is an illegitimate child. But the adulterine part is not mentioned. Isn't that the reason she can't ever be part of the line of succession? If yes, then it definitely should on the article. 85.217.42.90 (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Media References

The Hello Magazine reference has been on this page for 2 1/2 years (until CDRL102 decided to remove as not relevant). The recent interview in Harper's Bazaar is also relevant because it is referenced as her "First Interview", and that it was conducted from the Palace in the Principality of Monaco. It establishes (historically) the relationship between father and daughter and extended family (despite repeated labels of illegitimacy, which should only referenced with regard to Heir). For the first time a legitimate publication was granted an interview (obviously approved by the Principality since took place at the Palace) that sets the record straight about the historical time-line and relationship between Prince Albert II and his two older children. Many publications have also recently published photos of her with family members, such as; Princess Stephanie's children, also establishing a historical record of the relationship. The article also states she attended the Christening of her recent Brother (true Heir) and sister. It is relevant because so much gossip has painted a different picture of Prince Albert's parental responsibilities -- and his public image is of historical interest. AbbyLawrence (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It was on here for 2 1/2 years until I read the page and felt that it shouldn't be there as I don't see it's relevance or encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't a gossip site. I cited the following for reasons against these paragraphs - "WP:BLP, WP:VER and WP:Relevance" CDRL102 (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I notice that your defense begins with "I read"... "and (I) felt" it shouldn't be there... "I don't see..." No one said Wikipedia was a gossip site, and it certainly is not. However, it is often used and referred to as a reference tool (site) and the details published in these two reputable (not gossip) publications answer historical questions often raised regarding the subjects involved. Unsure, why you feel the need to arbitrarily edit the contents of the page simply because you feel it is not worthy. I suggest they remain because they historically and accurately (because they hold first-person quotes from the subjects involved) answer questions often raised about the subjects. You stated your position, which appears to be nothing more than you arbitrarily don't approve and this is not a worthy "for or against" defense of your position to keep or remove these articles. Clearly, certain topics regarding the subjects of these pages, since so often discussed, make it relevant. It is not speculation. It is not gossip. It is the "spoken words" of the subjects involved. therefore; it IS relevant.AbbyLawrence (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jazmin Grace Grimaldi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151012102335/http://jazminfund.com/ to http://www.jazminfund.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121102062012/http://www.hellomagazine.com/magazine/1250/ to http://www.hellomagazine.com/magazine/1250/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100417005030/http://www.palmspringslife.com/Blogs/The-Life/June-2006/Jazmin-Grace-Grimaldi-cover-girl/ to http://www.palmspringslife.com/Blogs/The-Life/June-2006/Jazmin-Grace-Grimaldi-cover-girl/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Partner

@DamianPythias999: What is a "partner"? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Possible marriage of her mother and Albert?

I believe that this edit is unconstructive, confusing a reader into believing that it is possible that Prince Albert, who is married, some day might marry Miss Grimaldi's mother instead. If nobody can come up with a good reason to retain such inappropriate wording, I will be reverting it again. While I'm at it, I'll also word the sentence so that the controversial word legitimate is clearly linked to the line of succession. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

But it's not impossible. Prince Albert is married now, but he could become a widower, or have his marriage annulled, which would leave him free to marry at that time. And if he then married Jazmin's also-then-fortuitously-maritally-unencumbered mother, that act would not legitimate Jazmin. - Nunh-huh 00:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

A far-fetched & implausible possibility like that (bordering on WP:BALL) is not supposed to be used to base Wikipedia text. There is no rational reason to leave the question open. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

It is a constitutional quirk. Unless a reliable source discusses it, it should be left to forums. Surtsicna (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

"Illegitimate" children?

I do not believe it is in the interest of Wikipedia in 2019 to label any child of any kind as "illegitimate", nor do I believe it is necessary to do so to this extent. I will be making such changes again, unless we can get a good reason for such unnecessary labeling. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, but legitimacy of birth is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution of Monaco no less than four times. In this case "illegitimate" is a constitutional term that is essential to the understanding of the topic. Surtsicna (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Quite necessary to use illegitimacy, in this situation. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Please have a look at my edit, which was reverted, which only was intended to clarify the constitutional situation and avoid using "illegitimate" with unnecessary frequency there. We are not here to label people in ways that are not clarified and throw controversial terms in people's faces over and over. This may be a WP:BLP issue too. As if someone had been convicted of a crime and we used crook crook crook crook crook 5-6 times in one short paragraph withour explaining. We don't need to edit like that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

You seem to have reverted against consensus. Please self-revert. -Nunh-huh 02:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"legitimacy of birth" is now mentioned sufficiently verbatim, to satisfy the reference to the Monaco consitution. We do not need "illegitimate" mentioned excessively and unmotivated (to a regular reader) in text so devised by a Wikipedian. I believe consensus will support me on that. No child is generally illegitimate. That needs to be perfectly clear, especially in a WP:BLP. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

No, consensus is mutual agreement, and no one who has commented has agreed with you. Your emotional reaction to the word "illegitimate" seems to have given you a bad case of "I don't hear you". - Nunh-huh 19:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea here for an RfC, to see whether or not excessive (excessive) use of the term "illegitimate child" is a good idea in a WP:BLP? I definitely do not think there is consensus to use it as excessively as the text was here before I toned it down.

Talk page discussions should not be unnecessarily personalized. We should all follow guidelines like "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating." --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, no one but you has objected, and no one has agreed with you. You reverted to your preferred version without consensus. Since you have not self-reverted, I will revert to the consensus version and you can try to find people who agree with you, here or elsewhere. Note that this also removes the additional "illegitimate" added in the lede since your editing. Note also that a single editor reverting against consensus is an issue of behavior, not content.-Nunh-huh 19:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Objecting here, and noticing some rather uncooperative behavior as well.

An RfC seems a good way forward. --Ronz (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

"First American Princess" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect First American Princess. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey Steel1943! Where is the discussion of this particular item.? All I see is a mass thinghy that already has been closed. Since Ms. Grimaldi is not (not) a princess, the redirect is highly inappropriate. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Rollback

I rolled back 2 promotional edits with unacceptable sources. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

"Status" in the line of succession

She has never had any and never will. They section heading is wrong. Reverting again. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

“status” is a positive or negative, and doesn’t denote an automatic participation in the subject. “not in the line of participation”, phrasing wise, doesn’t make much sense as a subheading. it’s an incomplete sentence in itself. Bettydaisies (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The word status entails being. It equals position, positioning. The status of President Trum'ps presidency does not exist after January 20, 2021. My status in the Church of England does not exist. When one does not have something, one has no status in that regard.

We normally do not use a complete sentence for a section heading. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines status as a " a state, condition, or situation", while the Oxford English Dictionary refers to "status" as "the legal position of a person, group, or country" or "the social or professional position of someone or something in relation to others". If you define "Status" as a positive or negative, then wouldn't Grimalid's status be positive? "Not in the line of succession" reads as "Not a member of the Church of England" or "Not the President of the United States". The phrasing itself, besides anything, is incredibly clunky.--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Big laugh

Some mischief is more humorous than other mischief. Sorry, I do know how excruciatingly inappropriate this comment is. But I just hadda. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)